FREE NEWSLETTER
New research presented by Kiplinger shows significant variations in typical withdrawal rates. As you may suspect, some of that is based on age, marital status, the existence of a steady income stream and when the RMD kicks in.
Among the interesting observations: “The “Lifetime income” effect: Retirees are willing to spend roughly 80% of their “lifetime income,” which includes Social Security, pensions, and annuities. But they are only willing to spend about half of what they could safely afford to from their investment assets, which include: managed portfolios, IRAs and brokerage accounts. Retirees spend only about 40% to 50% of what would be considered a “safe” withdrawal from these pools of resources.
In any case, the typical single withdrawal rate is reported as age 65 – 1.9%, age 75 – 4.4% and age 80 – 4.6%.
For married folks age 65 – 2.2%, age 75 – 3.2% and age 80- 3.8%
Not sure what this means other than there is no such thing as a single desirable withdrawal rate and there is significant value in a steady income stream in retirement-neither of which are a revelation.
I’ve witnessed the 4% rule in practice. After inheriting a non-spouse IRA in my forties, my required RMDs have averaged 3.75% over the last two decades. Even with the much higher (>5%) required RMDs of recent years, the IRA has grown more than 50% in value since I inherited. Of course, growth depends on investment type, market conditions, etc. Had I realized this and my future tax liability sooner, I would have withdrawn more agressively in the early years — but taxes are a good problem to have!
You hit the nail on the head, there is no one number that fits ALL. But the 4% number is a good all around number to think about. Retirement is all good, if you saved properly for the 40 years before it, which apparently most people do not or can not do. Then they will struggle. At 80 years old, I take out as much as I can to not incur higher taxes.
Great timing on this article. I literally watched a YouTube video about an hour ago discussing eight common retirement withdrawal strategies, with the 4% rule being just one of them. It’s amazing how many different approaches there are once you move beyond the traditional rule.
They discussed methods like the Guyton-Klinger guardrails approach, which adjusts withdrawals based on portfolio performance. One method I didn’t see mentioned, though, was the modern risk-based guardrails strategy, which tries to adjust spending based on both portfolio risk and remaining horizon.
I’m curious if anyone here has actually used one of these more dynamic withdrawal strategies in retirement. The theory makes sense—adjust spending as conditions change—but I’d love to hear how it works in practice.
A few years ago I concluded I was under withdrawing. I begin with the RMD calculations but shifted to a modified guardrails approach. I evaluated just about every approach Christine Benz writes about at Morningstar. I ran a few scenarios and decided the MGA was best for me.
I have both traditional and Roth IRAs. My largest single annual withdrawal was 10% of the total value of these accounts. However, these accounts recovered and currently indicate a peak value. That’s been generally true on December 31 of each year. Because of circumstances we haven’t spent all of our withdrawal in recent years. That’s likely to be so in 2026. We are fortunate and don’t have to exercise caution with our spending. We’ve increased our charitable giving and G is currently on the east coast caring for an elderly relative. We have no concerns about the cost of her trips, which number 3-4 each year.
I’ll probably take a larger withdrawal this year. It is really more about tax management at this point. I’m allowing our taxed accounts to increase in value although I want to avoid going up a bracket with withdrawals. I have no intention of taking additional withdrawals from the Roth IRA in the foreseeable future.